The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. In light of the price and transaction method of the mobile phone purchased and transported by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s contradictory statements, the Defendant was aware of the fact that at least the mobile phone purchased and transported by himself is stolen.

It is reasonable to view it.

B. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous or erroneous in understanding the legal principles as to stolen goods.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

가. 공소사실 피고인은 2016. 8. 17. 시간 불상 경 휴대폰 메신저 ‘ 위 챗’ 을 통하여 중국에 있는 성명 불상 자로부터 A이 절취하거나 습득하여 온 피해자 H, 피해자 F, 피해자 G, 피해자 J, 피해자 M, 피해자 N의 각 소유인 시가 총 424만 원 상당의 휴대폰 6대를 운반하여 달라는 부탁을 받았다.

At around 14:50 on August 17, 2016, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the aforementioned mobile phones are stolen at the 2nd-on car page in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongnodong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) promised to receive KRW 30,000 from the above person in the name of the Defendant, and transported stolen goods by transporting approximately 100 meters away from the above person’s name to the designated place of the above person’s name.

B. The judgment of the court below - The court below acquitted the above charged facts for the following reasons.

1) Prior to the instant case, there is doubt that the Defendant had experience in driving a mobile phone delivery, and the transaction price of six mobile phones in the instant mobile phone is too low, and there is doubt that the Defendant was either inconsistent or making an oral statement that is not consistent with the objective facts while being investigated.

2) However, if the Defendant perceived that the instant mobile phone was a stolen, he/she would be paid only KRW 2-30,000.